If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You keep talking as if Iran doesn't probably have nukes of it's own or isn't backed by Russia by the same extent Israel is by Murica.

There was a lot of support potentially available to both sides during the Cold War, but for :reasons: it has arguably waned since then.

At the same time, the state of play between Israel & Iran is not entirely unlike that broader historical conflict. Recall the 1960 U-2 incident when the United States U-2 spy plane was shot down while in Soviet airspace. That flight originated from a U.S. base in a 3rd party country that was (relatively) proximate to the Soviet Union.

There difference here of course is that Israel went further, also launching an attack against the point of origin. Circumstances are different though, since they're in de-facto armed conflict with the proximate neighbor, Syria. Retaliating against the launch site was as much a warning not to permit such a carry-on as much as it is to dissuade Iran from acting out such a carry-on. So what advantage did Iran seek at risk of provoking these responses? What did they hope to gain by sending a drone aircraft to violate Israeli airspace?

It could have been intelligence, but one expects that if they wanted racy photos of Israeli military targets, they could probably beg them from their supposed backer ...

My interpretation of events is that Iran deliberately provoked the retaliation in order to reinforce national unity against an external enemy at home. The regime is a little shaky right now and it's a gambit to wag the dog. Syria would go along with it for pretty much the exact same reasons, because everybody loves to hate Israel.

Recall the 1960 U-2 incident when the United States U-2 spy plane was shot down while in Soviet airspace.

My interpretation of events is that Iran deliberately provoked the retaliation in order to reinforce national unity against an external enemy at home. The regime is a little shaky right now and it's a gambit to wag the dog. Syria would go along with it for pretty much the exact same reasons, because everybody loves to hate Israel.

You keep talking as if Iran doesn't probably have nukes of it's own or isn't backed by Russia by the same extent Israel is by Murica.

There was a lot of support potentially available to both sides during the Cold War, but for :reasons: it has arguably waned since then.

At the same time, the state of play between Israel & Iran is not entirely unlike that broader historical conflict. Recall the 1960 U-2 incident when the United States U-2 spy plane was shot down while in Soviet airspace. That flight originated from a U.S. base in a 3rd party country that was (relatively) proximate to the Soviet Union.

There difference here of course is that Israel went further, also launching an attack against the point of origin. Circumstances are different though, since they're in de-facto armed conflict with the proximate neighbor, Syria. Retaliating against the launch site was as much a warning not to permit such a carry-on as much as it is to dissuade Iran from acting out such a carry-on. So what advantage did Iran seek at risk of provoking these responses? What did they hope to gain by sending a drone aircraft to violate Israeli airspace?

It could have been intelligence, but one expects that if they wanted racy photos of Israeli military targets, they could probably beg them from their supposed backer ...

My interpretation of events is that Iran deliberately provoked the retaliation in order to reinforce national unity against an external enemy at home. The regime is a little shaky right now and it's a gambit to wag the dog. Syria would go along with it for pretty much the exact same reasons, because everybody loves to hate Israel.

Israel got a bloody nose fighting Hezbollah in 2006. After their ground invasion failed against well dug in Hezbollah forces they resorted to bombing the crap out of Hezbollah controlled areas of Lebanon.

This means that they want to send Assad a warning not to allow Hezbollah or any other Iranian Proxy set up camp in Syria.

This is also behind the relationship of convenience between Saudi Arabia and Israel: the threat of Iran.

Reminder that Iran is only a problem because the Americans shit themselves at the idea of nationalised Iranian oil cutting off corporate profits

Originally Posted by Paul Mason

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

Reminder that Iran is only a problem because the Americans shit themselves at the idea of nationalised Iranian oil cutting off corporate profits

If corporate profits is the price we pay for an Iran without nukes I'm fine with that

Any industrial nation willing to have actual measure of independence is going to work towards nukes.

Nah. Your head is stuck in the Russosphere. That's not at all true. What you need is allies (who respect you and aren't pointing a gun at you).

It's absolutely fucking true. Any government is going to compare outcomes with eg: Iraq, Ukraine (did in fact give up WMDs) and eg: Israel, Iran and North Korea and realise that owning nukes means that Russia, China and the US will, at minimum, treat you with a measure of forbearance rather one of them than rocking up on saturday night with a a few of their mates and having just a grand old time with your tender, pink orifices and national borders. Would China be pulling the bullshit they're getting away with regarding those artifical islands if Malaysia and the Philipines had nukes? I bet they'd be treading a lot more carefully, and you can bet that the regimes involved are deeply aware of that.

Non-proliferation might not be dead yet, but it's gutshot and praying for the medics to arrive real soon.

Does this mean you think there are only 8 countries on the planet with an actual measure of independence?

Of course countries that are in the sights of major power struggles are going to need nukes to ensure complete sovereignty. You're taking that one step further and saying everyone who wants to be independent needs it. My point is that that's not true. Lots of countries feel independent because their interests are aligned with the status quo. If those alliances break down to the point that they're pointing guns at each other, then sure.

Originally Posted by Malcanis

Would China be pulling the bullshit they're getting away with regarding those artifical islands if Malaysia and the Philipines had nukes?

Yeah I can see those countries wanting to get nukes for defense from an invasion, but I'm not sure it would stop China pushing the envelope in the south china sea. I don't think anyone's crazy enough to use one over control of water.

Originally Posted by Loire

I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.